Warming of the oceans stopped and reversed in 2003
Two separate studies through NASA confirm that since 2003, the world's oceans have been losing heat. In the peak of the recent warming trend, 1998 actually ranked 2nd to 1934 as the warmest year on record.
John Willis, an oceanographer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab, published his first report about the warming oceans. The article Correcting Ocean Cooling (see below) published on NASA's Earth Observatory page this week discussed his and other results. willis used data from1993-2003 that showed the warm-up and followed the Global Warming Theory. In 2006, he co-piloted a follow-up study led by John Lyman at Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle that updated the time series for 2003-2005. Surprisingly, the ocean seemed to have cooled. He was surprised, and called it a 'speed bump' on the way to global warming.
A second, independent study was conducted. Takmeng Wong and his colleagues at NASA’s Langley Research Center in Virginia came up with the same results. Wong studies net flux of solar energy at the top of our atmosphere. From the 1980s to 1990s his team noticed increased amounts net energy when comparing incoming solar energy to what Earth radiates and reflects. Since then, the solar flux has remained the same. Other studies have suggested that the sun's output has decreased in the past few years.
Wong's take is that melting arctic ice is responsible for the cooling of the oceans. I contend that if that were the case, why did it take until 2003 to show cooling, after a few decades of warming? Also, the UKMET office showed that Earth's temperatures have been cooling for the past five years. Since 75% of the planet is water, that would make sense. Just last week, I wrote about the arctic sea ice returning to 1979 levels just 1 1/2 years after the fear of the biggest summer ice retreat in 2007.
But what about the basics? Ocean temperatures do experience a 'lag' or delay in heating and cooling. That is why Ocean City's surf temperatures are chilly during Memorial Day weekend, but warm significantly by Labor Day weekend. The average Northern Hemisphere's peak heat (air temp) is in mid-July, while the Atlantic Ocean's peak heat (water) is in mid-September. The ocean temperature peaks in mid-September coincide with heightened hurricane activity.
So, could these reports indicate that melting cools the oceans and has a negative feedback on warming? Is this just a speed bump in the general trend of warming? Does this 'surprise' almost sound like they are dissapointed that the warming trend has not continued so far? Or is this just part of a natural cycle, such as the seasons, but on a larger scale? With regard to cycles, we have only been sampling and studying a small part of Earth's history and have perhaps jumped to conclusions about the impact of carbon dioxide (there are more potent gases such as methane that don't make headlines). What do you think? What about the 'surprise' of the scientists? Please share in the comments section below.
Comments
Actually the earths temps have been dropping for at least the last 7yrs. This all as the CO2 continues to increase. The UN body, the IPCC forecasted the earths temps to be hotter and they are falling;
icecap.us/images/uploads/tc02vsIPCC.jpg
icecap.us/images/uploads/MSULT1208.JPG
Sir, your story is incomplete.
htt-p://earthobservatory.nasa.gov-/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php (take out the dashes)
You cover page 1 and 2 of this article, but it's at page 3 that it gets interesting.
'For nearly a year after the 2006 ocean cooling paper was published, nothing obvious turned up. It wasn’t until that next year of data came in that the cooling in the Atlantic became so large and so widespread that Willis accepted the cooling trend for what is was: an unambiguous sign that something in the observations was “clearly not right.” '
this is getting more and more hilarious. if it weren't so pitiful, it would be even more entertaining.....i hope this whole lie gets exposed soon....
Sir, I had another look at your article and the NASA article I linked to in my previous comment.
I couldn't help but notice that your article follows the NASA article almost exactly (though not literally copying from it) and the graphs on your article are also present in the NASA article. But the strange thing is - besides some misquoting, ie Takmong Wong never said the cooling could be due to melting Arctic sea ice - that you don't finish the story that it turned out there was a problem with the measurements and thus there was no global cooling. You just leave the most important thing out!
Now, if you'll allow me, my question to you is: Didn't you read all of the NASA article (and checked the latest graphs for global ocean temperatures and global sea level rise) or did you leave out what didn't fit in the point you were trying to make, ie that it's perhaps proof of natural variation?
The problem is, a lot of people that read your article will not know it contains outdated information. I hope you do agree with me that your article is incomplete to say the least.
Kind regards,
Neven
Neven,
Whether there is a slight cooling or warming in the oceans one thing is now clear. The doomsday scenarios painted by Al Gore and the IPCC just aren't happening. Hopefully people will wake up to reality before it's too late and the regulatory damage is done.
Neven: You're right, the rest of the article is interesting -- but not for the reasons you say.
The article is a perfect example of a "scientist" who keeps manipulating his data until it gives him the "right" answer. Look at these excerpts [my comments in brackets]:
"It wasn’t until that next year of data came in that the cooling in the Atlantic became so large and so widespread that Willis accepted the cooling trend for what is was: an unambiguous sign that something in the observations was “clearly not right.”
[i.e., it didn't agree with the models, so had to be "adjusted".]
“First, I identified some new Argo floats that were giving bad data; they were too cool compared to other sources of data during the time period. It wasn’t a large number of floats, but the data were bad enough, so that when I tossed them, most of the cooling went away. But there was still a little bit, so I kept digging and digging.”
[Yep: Data selection is the easiest way to "adjust" "bad" data. Notice that the only criteria used is that the rejected float data is in the direction he doesn't want. Wonder if he looked for any warm "outliers"?...]
"The digging led him to the data from the expendable temperature sensors, the XBTs. A month before, Willis had seen a paper by Viktor Gouretski and Peter Koltermann that showed a comparison of XBT data collected over the past few decades to temperatures obtained in the same ocean areas by more accurate techniques, such as bottled water samples collected during research cruises. Compared to more accurate observations, the XBTs were too warm."
“The problem was more pronounced at some points in time than others. But when he factored the too-warm XBT measurements into his ocean warming time series, the last of the ocean cooling went way."
Problem solved! Just throw away the really embarrassing data (from your state-of-the-art sensors), then add in some data from a 40 year old technique suspected to be biased the other way, and Voila! Dangerous (to his funding, anyway) ocean cooling has disappeared!
Had the Argo float data showed the oceans warming, Willis wouldn't have given it a second look -- just published another "confirmation" of AGW.
I've worked as an engineer for 30 years -- adjusting data to fit preconceived beliefs is never a good way to reach accurate conclusions. Willis' methods are bogus, and he will get good results only by accident, if at all.
THIS COMMENT MAY SHOW MULTIPLE TIMES DUE TO ERROR IN THE SYSTEM WITH TYPOS.. SORRY
Neven, Thanks for your intelligent interest. My intent is to raise questions and debate. I did read the whole article, and my purpose was not to regurgitate it. Too much of that already on the internet. The XBT showed old data was too warm, and new data was to cold. Look at the graph on pg. 4 of that article and you'll see the 'revised' data still shows cooling. I did post the link for the purpose of the truly interested to read for the rest. My purpose was also to contrast other information that conveniently does not get exposure. Arctic sea ice is at a 30 yr high. All ice stories only use records back to 1979. We don't have comparable, accurate records of expansion and retreat before that time. How about James Hansen- being celebrated by NASA and AMS? He just published a report saying last October was the warmest month on the planet ON RECORD. I was hard pressed to find any recount when it was proven that he used data in Russia from September. All the while, NOAA recorded 63 local snowfall records and 115 record low temperatures that month. I could have and should have spent more time on that. The latest comment I do agree with: Doomsday is not happening. Yes we need to clean things up, and become more efficient. But lying to the public about what will happen will only turn them away when it doesn't happen. Also: Severe weather happens! Always has, and always will. Too many reports these days tries to link and storm as 'proof'. That, any statistical expert would say is not true! DON'T HATE, JUST DEBATE! THEN NEGOTIATE.
Neven: You're right, the rest of the article is interesting -- but not for the reasons you say.
The article is a perfect example of a "scientist" who keeps manipulating his data until it gives him the "right" answer. Look at these excerpts [my comments in brackets]:
"It wasn’t until that next year of data came in that the cooling in the Atlantic became so large and so widespread that Willis accepted the cooling trend for what is was: an unambiguous sign that something in the observations was “clearly not right.”
[i.e., it didn't agree with the models, so had to be "adjusted".]
“First, I identified some new Argo floats that were giving bad data; they were too cool compared to other sources of data during the time period. It wasn’t a large number of floats, but the data were bad enough, so that when I tossed them, most of the cooling went away. But there was still a little bit, so I kept digging and digging.”
[Yep: Data selection is the easiest way to "adjust" "bad" data. Notice that the only criteria used is that the rejected float data is in the direction he doesn't want. Wonder if he looked for any warm "outliers"?...]
"The digging led him to the data from the expendable temperature sensors, the XBTs. A month before, Willis had seen a paper by Viktor Gouretski and Peter Koltermann that showed a comparison of XBT data collected over the past few decades to temperatures obtained in the same ocean areas by more accurate techniques, such as bottled water samples collected during research cruises. Compared to more accurate observations, the XBTs were too warm."
“The problem was more pronounced at some points in time than others. But when he factored the too-warm XBT measurements into his ocean warming time series, the last of the ocean cooling went way."
Problem solved! Just throw away the really embarrassing data (from your state-of-the-art sensors), then add in some data from a 40 year old technique suspected to be biased the other way, and Voila! Dangerous (to his funding, anyway) ocean cooling has disappeared!
Had the Argo float data showed the oceans warming, Willis wouldn't have given it a second look -- just published another "confirmation" of AGW.
I've worked as an engineer for 30 years -- adjusting data to fit preconceived beliefs is never a good way to reach accurate conclusions. Willis' methods are bogus, and he will get good results only by accident, if at all.
The Big Bear Solar Observatory's Earthshine project has shown that the earth's albedo accounts for most of the 1970-1998 warming and increased cloudiness (causes increased albedo) goes along with recent cooling.
The Big Bear Solar Observatory's Earthshine project has shown that the earth's albedo accounts for most of the 1970-1998 warming and increased cloudiness (causes increased albedo) goes along with recent cooling.
A think the article and a lot of the comments just go to point to how truly unsettled the science of climate change is. While the IPCC and Al Gore would have us believe that the science is settled and 99.9% of the free world believes in global warming, nothing could be further from the truth.
The voices of dissent have been silenced for a long time and just in the last year have finally been vocal and heard at least a little bit. Now we are beginning to see that the "science" itself that global warming alarmists base their arguments on is much less than perfect.
Let's think about the volumes involved. NASA tries to spin cooling oceans on melting ice. How much water is in the world's oceans, and how much 32 degree water from ice melt is flowing into them? The ratio must be somewhere near a million to one! NASA's theory is implausible.
There are 3,000 Argo robot oceanographic observatories in the world's oceans. Claiming to do science while ignoring the Argo observations is scandalous. The Argo robots say: 'The oceans are cooling'.
"So, could these reports indicate that melting cools the oceans and has a negative feedback on warming? Is this just a speed bump in the general trend of warming? Does this 'surprise' almost sound like they are dissapointed that the warming trend has not continued so far? Or is this just part of a natural cycle, such as the seasons, but on a larger scale? "
When the facts don't add up, check your assumptions -- Gregory House M.D.
I think you should read the article by Rebecca Lindsey on Nasa's Earth Obervatory website. It's called "Correcting Ocean Cooling".
The global Argos buoy system have not found any heating for some years now. What a suprise!
The AGW machine is the left's funding mechanism for worldwide socialism. They can't let it fail. George Soros can't fund the entire world all by himself. He needs the backs of every comsumer person in the world to realize his Soros funded/driven Open Society. Hey, if you can't defeat a Capitalist society, use it to fund your own system while stripping away the wealth of every middle-class person in the world. It's CRIMINAL.
A La Nina cooling trend has started in the Pacific Ocean. This is another sign of cooling, since it wss the El Nino warming trend of the late 1990s that helped cause 1998 to be the second warmest year of the 20th Century, and it has been cooling since.
Lots of interesting data on this website
www.isthereglobalwarming.com
Justin - Great to see you blogging and about NASA research! I'm still keeping the NASA Hurricane page fresh, and there's been a lot of activity in the southern Indian Ocean: www.nasa.gov/hurricane
I love your blog - It's bookmarked! -Rob
The oceans cool and global warming is blamed. Give me a break. Does anybody still believe this global warming nonsense?
to JHC: Did you bother to read Justin's article? It IS about the article by Rebecca Lindsey on "Correcting Ocean Cooling"!
The completely bogus "science" in this article is no better summed up than by Willis' rejecting colder Argus floats because "...they were too cool compared to other sources of data during the time period." -- while eagerly accepting old XBT data BECAUSE "Compared to more accurate observations, the XBTs were too warm."
Obviously, data exclusion and inclusion selection was done for the SOLE PURPOSE of getting rid of the embarassing cooling signal.
This is called "fudging" or "cheating" -- it is NOT science! The fact that these "scientists" will actually publish this stuff shows an incredible ignorance of what science is. They obviously see their job as providing support for the Enhanced AGW theory.
Of course, when you select for bias, that is what you get. Scientists who actually do their job of exploring the data and theories without prejudice are selected out by the funding process, which is firmly in the control of the alarmists.
When are all the scientists going to converge to take that final vote on the existence of global warming? Science is the new politics, you know. Look what happened to Pluto.
Readers and writers.... I'm glad this got your attention and has generated a lot of interest. Normally I will post once or twice a day, but I did not want this article to lose it's place on the Examiner home page.
First: This article is about Correcting Ocean Cooling article that is linked in the post. I wanted touch on the basics, and then get you to read the rest and come up with your conclusions. Frequent readers or listeners to my old show Weather Talk know that I have grown more skeptical of worst case scenarios in the past few years. However, I always encourage intelligent debate... even with people who don't like me for pointing out contrasting scientific information. This NASA story does discuss the correction in the data, but as I wrote (down below) last night... it was too warm and then too cold in the data set. Graph on Page 4 shows a net increase from the mid 1950s, but a distinct cooling recently even with the revised data set. You will see ups and downs along the chart, but this down turn is what the scientists were surprised with. Please keep it going. I may have to dedicate more time to it in between potential storm. Of course in our snow-less winter some might argue that as their point. Just look at the rest of the nation from Raleigh to New Orleans, Houston, Seattle, and Las Vegas who might debate otherwise. Credit icecap.us for linking to this story, and promoting real scientific studies and research that does not get much press time. Also, Rob Gutro from NASA who wrote down below.... he organized NASA's Hurricane Page and sees the health in this debate as well.
Cheers...
If the ocean cools when ice caps melt, does the ocean warm when the ice caps expand?
If the ocean cools when ice caps melt, does the ocean warm when the ice caps expand?
Justin Berk, I appreciate that you try to raise questions and debate but by doing it in this manner you are seriously undermining the skeptic side of the debate. Everyone who does just a minimum of research will find out that most of what you have written in your article and your comments is incomplete and inaccurate. (mind you, I'm not talking about the global warming debate in general, just about the presentation and content of your article which I find highly misleading)
And what in my view is the real shame is that a well-known site as ICECAP reproduces your article. Now, they're smart enough to know that several parts of your article don't stick, so why would they place the article on such a prominent place on their homepage anyway? After my research I'm having even more doubts as to the motives of the people behind ICECAP.
But that's up to everybody to decide for themselves (after they've done some research).
My point is: you're not doing your credibility a great service when producing faulty articles such as this one, and credibility is of utmost importance when wanting to raise questions and debate.
Neven,
My article is not misleading. It wasn't my study, just view on another article about it. I did not hide anything, but encouraged readers to read the original article themselves. Major media outlets that barrage the public with scary Global Warming stories, but not reporting something important such as last week's report on recovery of arctic sea ice is 'misleading'. Reports about Hansen's publication on the warmest October on record, but not a follow up that he imported a warmer month into the data is misleading. I only present this since it is the most recent. There have been countless others over the years. You can be honest by saying that you don't like my take on this NASA article, but trying to link and taint my credibility isn't helping yours. I mentioned other credible sources such as the UKMET office data that was not cross referenced with Willis' or Wong's research. Please explain why that is misleading. As far as ICECAP, I did not have contact with them. They picked this up on their own. I was glad they did, but they have a plentiful supply of credible documentation that they have been presenting for a long time. In all honesty, I would welcome their take on the NASA story. I have little doubt that they would raise similar doubts as well. Thanks again for your interest, but you demonstrate the problem with this debate: If you don't agree with what you read, work around the opposing data and attack the messenger. Have you read the other posts here? There is valid information given by many others who are also skeptical. Remember, this all started by the fact that I don't believe in the worst case scenario, and everything here has proven that to be the case. Computer modeling is imperfect. Synoptic forecasters such as myself have enough problems with the 5 day forecast. How can we expect higher accuracy with 5 decades or more?
Justin: No, Neven doesn't read the other posts -- he just insists that everything the article says about "Correcting" the cooling be taken as Gospel.
I've participated as a reviewer for journal articles (not in the field of climate, however), and anyone who has done this knows that a verbal claim of proof is irrelevant -- it is what the data and analysis shows that counts. This guy Willis has, in my opinion, engaged in blatant data manipulation to justify a preconceived conclusion. Maybe he doesn't even realize he's fudging, as he doesn't try to hide it -- he admits up front that the only criteria for data selection is to make the composite data warmer, as it is "clearly not right” to him that the oceans could have cooled like the data says. In other words, he already knows what the "right" answer is, and proceeds blatently to manipulate the data to fit, going as far as adding in data known to be biased warm (the XBT probes) just to kill the cooling.
This would be a reject, if I were a referee. I would tell Willis to produce rational criteria to accept or reject data (other than a desire to see a particular outcome), then have the courage to live with the results.
Of course, since the "wrong" results (in the field of climatology) often can result in loss of funding, this kind of brazen cheating is becoming the norm. And these are the people who's opinion we are supposed to respect and not ever question!
You can't fool mother nature. No matter what's happening, warming, cooling [what I believe] the earth is doing with no help from humans.
Fact; There have been periods in earth's history warmer than today. There have been periods colder than today, much colder. It's all about the cycles. There are a lot of scientists who say warming caused by us is a hoax, a means of controlling the masses, unifying the world.
There are many references, scientific data, etc. at www.iceagenow.com for those that are interested.
It's easy reading for those of us who don't make our living pouring over such things.
Thanks for the back up guys. I and many others have been vilified before just for raising questions. Today: You can skip on your taxes and still become Secretary of the Treasury. What happened to all the checks, balances, and integrity?
Great article. Thanks for bringing it to public attention.
Sunspots directly drive the earth's temperature, and we are at an all-time recorded low. Global cooling is upon us, as shown in the ocean and satellite data.
The Gore-Hansen buffoons are trying like hell to keep this from the public's attention, including Hansen going so far as to be deceptive. He falsifies data, adding his own "secret sauce" to the raw data, "adjusting" and "correcting" it (through a mysterious computer program that he will not allow others to examine), then announces the world is still warming.
He is a corrupt (took $250,000 from Kerry's wife's foundation), dangerous, out of control preacher who needs to be fired.
Hate to say I told you so but...
Look five billion dollars a year to prove AGW can't be wrong. It's not like they want to tax us or anything on a theory that has yet to be proven by predicting future results or even past ones.
read!
Justin, if you actually read and understood the report link below, I cannot understand how you can question the current global warming theory because the reports certainly did not.
Your article is irresponsible at best and seems to be typical of those who do not really understand the scientific method and what a theory is.
Greatclip - I studied and applied the Scientific Method at Cornell. Global Warming is a theory, but not always presented as such. Good science will include and reference other valid studies. There are many that explain the recent cooling. The two studies in the NASA article never mentioned them. All I did was mention a few other reports and ask readers to give their thoughts. I also read the article in full. Before you jump to conclusions... click next twice and see the follow up. The data STILL showed cooling after the 'smoothing'. I disagree with how it was dismissed. Thanks for your interest.
That was my point. His article did not reflect that he read the entire article.
I totally disagree with your assessment. The article is about how science works. They had conflicting things on their hands, and they found errors that resolved most of it.
Wake up, the earth is not going to boil over, carbon tax is based on fraud. There is not the detailed base of information for lengthy time periods to make factual statements.
Global warming/climate change is all about social engineering.
Justin, it wasn't my intention to vilify you. If you say your intentions are good I believe you. I was just saying that you are undermining the skeptical side of the issue. Unless you were writing for people who do not like to do research and take articles such as yours at face value.
People who do research the background of articles such as yours are bound to conclude that the picture you drew is incomplete and inaccurate (even after all the changes you made to your initial story).
And the same goes for remarks like you made about 'last week's report on recovery of arctic sea ice'. Anyone who researches this will soon find out that the report was not about Arctic sea ice but about global sea ice. Arctic sea ice isn't recovering. And the article was basically about nothing. If you want to talk about recovery you have to look at maximum and minimum sea ice extent (or area, if you prefer), not at the status quo at December 31st.
Or your remark about 'reports about Hansen's publication on the warmest October on record'. Show me the publication, show me the reports, they're simply not there. You have read this somewhere, didn't research it, and then write about it as an authority figure (which for me meteorologists are), and after that other people read what you wrote, don't research it (because you appear to be an authority) and do exactly the same thing somewhere else.
Now, how can there be a debate if the basis for your claiming of this debate is inaccurate at best? Maybe there is a basis but you are not portraying it well. If you want to educate people that are not willing to do some research it's of paramount importance that at least you yourself do the research.
It's not about vilifying, it's about trying to be as accurate as possible (do research, check sources) so as not to misinform people by accident. Misinformation is not a light thing. It's one thing to be misinformed, but it's quite another thing to start misinforming yourself. Especially about a serious issue as Global Warming.
Neven,
There seems to be a glitch in the system, so I will try to remove the repeat (3x) posts. For the record, I only edit mistakes... so all opinions are welcome, as long as you keep the language in check and PG-13.
I am going to make a post later today about James Lovelock (one of the leaders of the environmental movement), who is publicly denouncing the Green Movement and Carbon Credits as a money scheme and a waste of efforts. Many people have often speculated that a lot of research feeds itself with more funding based on it's results. Recent findings of cooling hurt that cause. I co developed a college course with a more liberal minded professor. We taught Lovelock's Gia Hypothesis as part of rounding the discussion on both ends. I am hoping my former co-instructor will write up HIS thoughts so that I can post here and you can get another opinion. In the meantime, I will be writing about the local present weather! Thx
Neven: Are you totally clueless? Do you think that, if the Argo floats showed warming, Willis would have tried to "correct" them? (There is no real evidence -- anything that would allow someone else to repeat it -- that Hansen has made any attempt to correct NASA data for Urban Heat Island effect, for example. It is in the right direction, you see.)
Can you recognize data manipulation and selection bias even when it is openly admitted? Do you have any science background at all?
About the only thing I see that you can bring to the "debate" is a baseless, total faith in anything a "climate scientist" claims (as long as he/she is on the "right" side, that is).
This earth is Billions of years old, we have only begun to track its powers, most of us know it is the sun that effects our weather far more than man would like to think. NASA I believe is closer to what is going on, no one has all the answers, least of all people who make millions out of scaring the heck out of young kids...like Al Gore. The Polar bears are a good example of how the enviromentist freaks donot know what they are taking about. Love the ad where they show the polar bear (fat bear)out alone on a iceburg..lol They swim...they travel in the water to get sea food..they are the most protected and watched over bear on earth. They are fine, and shall be fine as long as they have sea food. The main thing to remember in all this ..is, our earth and what she does naturally is far more powerful than anything man can throw at her, now..or even 10,000 years from now. Avolcanoe can do more damanage in 1 hour than man can do in a million years. Stop and look around, man is not so important as to be able to destroy Earth as we are being told by bunny huggers and the Al Gore cult..Enviromentist are the worst buggers since hitler.
Justin, I'm looking forward to that piece about Lovelock. A piece about him just came out on New Scientist two days ago.
I think we would definitely agree on the fact that carbon cap systems or carbon trading is a huge scam. I'm an AGW-believer but I am totally against such complex schemes. And I'm allergic to greenwash as well (a lot of that around).
To me, these Global warming alarmist are a fraud! Most of these idiots can't evenn tell me with accuracy what the weatherr is going to be like 3 months from now,.. yet,.. These are the same idiots telling me what the weather is going to be 50 years from now!
GET OUT!
The Global Warming Hoax is crumbling just like every other socialist agenda and idea!
Has anyone done the math?
The sun is 93 million miles from earth,and the earth travels around it once a year.Doing the math,that is about 564 million miles.The earth is travelling through space at the rate of 66,671 miles per hour.It is also ratating at a rate of 1030 miles and hour.How the hell is man going to upset this.What it is,is that if one believes that man is so great,then God is not.
As I said do the math.
Your thoughts on GW do not matter to the people pushing it. They already knew that you would not buy into it. They don't care about what you think. They are targeting simple minded people who trust everything they hear, because there are many of those people in America, where there is power in numbers (even if those numbers are great due to ignorance). People trust the media, who clearly have an agenda, more than they do NASA, where real and tangable results are being shared. You deserve what's coming.
We need more carbon--not less.
A tree is made of carbon.It takes in co2 and stores the carbon and gives off oxygen.We are planting more trees.If we cut back on carbon,they will die.Also the trees that are full grown will die.If this happens we will die as well.Not enough oxygen.
Of course this is too simple.
There is something to be said about hugging a tree.
I'd like the preface this single point with a thought: I am a AGW skeptic, I do not completely understand the science, I do not completely understand the data, I do not completely understand the political issues. In fact, I do not completely understand anything, as Socrates came to realize - it would be naive to claim otherwise.
My single point is this, though semi satirical: There seems to be an almost universal agreement among scientists that at one point in the Earth's history, an Ice Age occurred. From here I conclude that if it has occurred, it is entirely possible that is can and will occur again. Consider that at our current point in the evolutionary process, human beings are better suited to live in warm temperatures. Now consider, if there is the possibility that another Ice Age will occur, should we or should we not be doing all we can to offset this possibility?
I'd like the preface this single point with a thought: I am a AGW skeptic, I do not completely understand the science, I do not completely understand the data, I do not completely understand the political issues. In fact, I do not completely understand anything, as Socrates came to realize - it would be naive to claim otherwise.
My single point is this, though semi satirical: There seems to be an almost universal agreement among scientists that at one point in the Earth's history, an Ice Age occurred. From here I conclude that if it has occurred, it is entirely possible that is can and will occur again. Consider that at our current point in the evolutionary process, human beings are better suited to live in warm temperatures. Now consider, if there is the possibility that another Ice Age will occur, should we or should we not be doing all we can to offset this possibility?
I'd like the preface this single point with a thought: I am a AGW skeptic, I do not completely understand the science, I do not completely understand the data, I do not completely understand the political issues. In fact, I do not completely understand anything, as Socrates came to realize - it would be naive to claim otherwise.
My single point is this, though semi satirical: There seems to be an almost universal agreement among scientists that at one point in the Earth's history, an Ice Age occurred. From here I conclude that if it has occurred, it is entirely possible that is can and will occur again. Consider that at our current point in the evolutionary process, human beings are better suited to live in warm temperatures. Now consider, if there is the possibility that another Ice Age will occur, should we or should we not be doing all we can to offset this possibility?
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!